A fresh reminder of words’ power

Our opinion: A murderous rampage in Norway, like a massacre in Phoenix, reminds us that with freedom — including free speech — comes responsibility.

Just a few months ago, America was reflecting on the consequences of words. It was right after a shooting rampage in Tucson, Ariz., that left six dead, including a 9-year-old girl, and 13 injured, allegedly by a gunman out to assassinate U.S. Rep. Gabrielle Giffords.

As we listen this week to some people on the airwaves here in America talk about a new tragedy in Norway, it is worth reflecting again. Not on the power of guns and bombs, but of words.

Let’s be clear about what we mean, and what we don’t mean.

We are not arguing against free speech. We are urging responsible speech.

We are not saying that a straight line can be drawn between every violence-laden or hate-laden statement by one person and violent act by another. We are saying that violent or hateful rhetoric creates a climate in which violence and hatred, to some, may seem more acceptable. To particularly weak, troubled or sick minds, it can help make the unthinkable seem quite plausible.

The alleged Norwegian shooter, Anders Behring Breivik, seems to have been influenced by a growing anti-Muslim, anti-immigrant climate in Europe. His 1,500-plus word “manifesto” also borrows from the writings of Ted Kaczynski, the American terrorist known as the Unabomber.

Some people get that. To their credit, for instance, national Republican figures took obvious pains after the Tucson shooting to change their mantra of “job-killing taxes” to “job-destroying taxes.” It was a minor change that replaced somewhat violent imagery with language just as potent — and the GOP hardly can be accused of going soft.

Some, unfortunately, don’t get it.

After Tucson, for example, Sarah Palin, the former governor of Alaska and 2008 vice presidential hopeful, portrayed questions about her frequent use of gun imagery as an assault on free speech.

Now, in the wake of 76 deaths in Norway at the hands of a man who supposedly was lashing out against Islam and multiculturalism, we see more stoking of the flames here, as some influential radio hosts portray the victims, most of them children, as suspect.

There was Glenn Beck on his show Monday morning, wondering about the nature of the politically oriented youth camp where 68 children were shot to death. Here’s an excerpt from his ramblings:

“… there was a shooting at a political camp, which sounds a little like the Hitler Youth. Who does a camp for kids that’s all about politics? Disturbing.”

And that evening, there was radio host Michael Savage defending extremism, sandwiching in disclaimers that he opposes violence and stating, “You’re talking about the slaughter of innocent children — albeit they were the children of the Labor Party, the enemies of Norway’s cultural identity. I understand that.”

In an interview with the right-wing World Net Daily, he went so far as to suggest liberals in Norway staged the killings: “This is likely a fabrication of the Labour Party, who needs to hold on to power to enforce their multi-culturalist, Muslim-favoring, anti-nationalist views.”

These are not just some weird voices in the wilderness. They are two of the most listened-to radio hosts in America, with millions of listeners each.

They have a right, of course, to say what they want. But in a land of free speech, they — and the rest of us — must be mindful of the potential cost of our words.

What nonsense! Dismissing behavior as extremism does nothing more than force the pool of the loosely attached to reality to develop more attention grabbing behavior. The world trade center was first attacked by an extremist with a small plane. Later our attention was gotten with a much more effective attack. The dismissing those who threaten society, as extremists absolves one from the task of coping with reality, but this behavior is not a survival enhancing trait.

When you hide words, you increase their value.Instead of valuing their words for what they are and who is saying them, this viewpoint,unintentional as it is, shows an insult to the intelligence of most everyday people, who can differentiate between right and wrong. It also validates their words for the people who can not.